Background:
There are Formula 1 race cars using matte finishes these days (Red Bull for one). On a racing forum, much discussion as to whether there is an aerodynamic advantage to such while some hypothesize that the matte finish makes the various vinyl graphics “pop” and that any difference in finish would be so minuscule as to be of no concern.
I read an academic study about wind turbine blades and the deteriorated aerodynamic effect once the finish on the blade ages and becomes “rough”.
There are also WW2 studies showing the effects of camo paint, polished surfaces, etc., but in reading the details of the degraded performance in those studies, the Spitfires and P-51 Mustangs used had original paint in poor condition with chips and peeling areas so those studies seem to need to be taken with a grain of salt.
Yet another study discussed seriously degraded performance on an airplane with old, detiorated paint but again, in the details it turned out that the aircraft in question had NINE or so coats of paint that had been piled on one after the other (substantial weight!) and when ALL that paint was stripped off and a fresh coat applied the performance of the ship went up substantially.
SO….I’d like some informed opinions about the aerodynamic considerations of painting my BD-4 with a matte base and then applying some gloss vinyl graphics to dress it up. I know that gloss paint is the norm in many circles and considered to be aerodynamically superior but I also know that matte paint will hide some visual imperfections AND make those graphics really stand out. What is the latest thought on gloss versus matte…and for that matter, vinyl graphics on top of the substrate?
Matte paint may be “rougher” at a microscopic level…would this matter enough to be of concern? I’ve read a lot on this topic and am hearing conflicting information. Imagine that! Conflicting information on the internet!
THANKS for your thoughts,
Jay
There are Formula 1 race cars using matte finishes these days (Red Bull for one). On a racing forum, much discussion as to whether there is an aerodynamic advantage to such while some hypothesize that the matte finish makes the various vinyl graphics “pop” and that any difference in finish would be so minuscule as to be of no concern.
I read an academic study about wind turbine blades and the deteriorated aerodynamic effect once the finish on the blade ages and becomes “rough”.
There are also WW2 studies showing the effects of camo paint, polished surfaces, etc., but in reading the details of the degraded performance in those studies, the Spitfires and P-51 Mustangs used had original paint in poor condition with chips and peeling areas so those studies seem to need to be taken with a grain of salt.
Yet another study discussed seriously degraded performance on an airplane with old, detiorated paint but again, in the details it turned out that the aircraft in question had NINE or so coats of paint that had been piled on one after the other (substantial weight!) and when ALL that paint was stripped off and a fresh coat applied the performance of the ship went up substantially.
SO….I’d like some informed opinions about the aerodynamic considerations of painting my BD-4 with a matte base and then applying some gloss vinyl graphics to dress it up. I know that gloss paint is the norm in many circles and considered to be aerodynamically superior but I also know that matte paint will hide some visual imperfections AND make those graphics really stand out. What is the latest thought on gloss versus matte…and for that matter, vinyl graphics on top of the substrate?
Matte paint may be “rougher” at a microscopic level…would this matter enough to be of concern? I’ve read a lot on this topic and am hearing conflicting information. Imagine that! Conflicting information on the internet!
THANKS for your thoughts,
Jay
